Third-Party Bandwagon Gains Momentum
By amba | Related entries in Elections, General PoliticsFirst it was Kurt Andersen in New York Magazine. Yesterday it was Tom Friedman on the New York Times Op-Ed Page. Naturally, the Times wants you to pay to read it. Fortunately it’s easily summarized: Friedman is appalled by both parties’ pandering “solutions” to the gas-price crisis, craven schemes for bribing voters out of the pockets of our kids and grandkids. He believes that both parties’ utter abdication of the responsibility to get very serious about the energy crisis that is upon us — and is also, of course, our national-security crisis — creates a huge opening for a third party, and that such a party will field a presidential candidate as early as 2008. Andersen playfully calls it the Purple Party, Friedman, more ponderously, the “American Renewal Party.” Its candidate must have the guts (as John Hellemann also argued in New York) to slap a federal tax on gasoline that will keep its price above $4 a gallon for the foreseeable future, forcing industry and consumers to face reality and start to conserve and innovate for real.
I hate to say I told you so. Bloggers have been way out ahead on this issue, but who are we? Now that some MSM heavies are jumping on the bandwagon, can financing and viable candidates be far behind?
UPDATE: Dyre Portents finds more encouraging numbers via Slate’s Kausfiles.
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 4th, 2006 and is filed under Elections, General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:15 am
2008 is way too soon. Way, way, way too soon. The only way this happens at all is if a significant number of established Republicans and established Democrats in the middle collude and agree among themselves to simultaneously defect.
May 4th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Given that the middle is the largest single segment, it would seem logical that politicians’ should first court this segment of the voting public. Save for a two party system, they might. The obstacles to this approach are the caucus and the primary systems where participation is typically skewed to the extremes. In essence, those individuals at opposite ends of the spectrum that are seeking to be accommodated make the most demands. By their nature, they actively pursue and participate in the struggle to obtain the promises or concessions they desire. This pushes the candidates of both party’s away from the center as they each battle to win their respective nominations.
I think this goes a long way towards explaining the typically low American voter turnout. The middle is seemingly neglected (or at best taken for granted) until the general election and by that time they likely feel neither candidate represents their moderate positions. In many ways, this is the predictable outcome. Independent and moderate voters are under represented in the process which means the candidates they might prefer probably won’t even make it to the ballot.
It is time for the middle to take its rightful position in politics. So long as we allow the extremes to dictate the dialogue, rhetoric will prevail. As with a pendulum, in order to find the center, conflict tends to first reach the extremes. History is the virtual seesaw of this process. Groups who see the resolution of conflict as simply a matter of power are destined to see their own power wane because they fail to persuade those over which they exert power. Over time, it is only persuasion that prevails. Until society rethinks its methods to resolve differences, tomorrow will merely look like today…the only difference will be whose in charge. I’m suggesting that its time for the middle to lead.
more observations here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
May 4th, 2006 at 11:05 am
“…$4 a gallon for the foreseeable future…”
That aint gonna work.
1) The average American is struggling at $3/gallon, you’re going to raise it another 25%? I don’t think that will sell well in middle America.
2) Once the govt gains a source of revenue, they can never let go of it.
What will they replace it with, once people move on to alternative fuels?
I imagine they’ll have to keep the tax at the same level, on the alternative fuels, since they’ll already be spending that money. So they only ones that come out ahead is the govt.
When has any country EVER successfully taxed their way out of a problem? We are just now beginning to seriously work on alternative fuels, because a large percentage of the public is starting to demand it. In a few more years, you’ll see hybrids everywhere, and most gas stations will carry ethanol. American industry works much better on supply and demand than government mandates.
Everybody should just take a deep breath and forget about instant gratification. In the mean time, can we please drill ANWR?
May 4th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
I believe that moderates are a majority. I would go so far as to say that they are a majority of those registered — in _both_ parties. Given that, it seems like an easier solution would be for more moderates to bestir themselves and vote in the primaries (or participate in the caucases).
The only reason to go the third party route (assuming it is actually possible) is if moderates are a only plurality: a minority in both parties, but together larger than the respective extremes.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
I still think a third party would have all the same problems of the other two. They would have to take sides on the issues; they would have their base to pander to; they would have their special interest groups funding them. I just don’t see how it would be much different, except that it would literally provide a third choice.
ford – I understand you drive a f-150, so maybe you are not the person to be talking about gas prices. I do believe that we should raise gas prices some because I believe that we should be paying much, much more for gas, but I also believe that the figures of $6-9 given by some is way too much. A good compromise could be reached at somewhere between $4-5. Of course that won’t go over well in “middle america,” but them’s the breaks. As it is, gas is already turning into a hardship for a lot of people. Most will just have to make more cuts in their “budgets” from the recreational/entertainment category, or from whereever they choose. Others will have to stop driving around town as much. It will force everyone to evaluate more closely if they can walk somewhere or make errand-running more efficient. Yes, a few people will suffer serious consequences, but I’m pretty sure the poorest of the poor are already unable to own a car due to other expenses, such as insurance (although I realize that’s not necessarily a hard and fast requirement.)
And no, we canNOT please drill ANWR!!!! I thought you wanted to forget about instant gratification!
May 5th, 2006 at 12:06 am
Personally I think that publicly financed elections would allow for a quick and effective birth of a viable third party as well as end the corruption that has plagued our government for ages.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:45 am
My understanding, which may be faulty, is that ANWR wouldn’t yield enough to make a dent in the problem.
May 5th, 2006 at 5:29 am
Meredith,
If any candidate runs on a platform that includes raising the price of gas to $4/gallon, they will lose in a landslide. The people of New York,
California, and people that comment on blogs will be the only one to vote for them. So many Americans are screaming the oil companies
7% profit margin, do you think they would stand for the government adding a 25% profit margin in the form of a tax?
Actually, what I drive has little to do with my argument. I use my truck for the business I run on the evenings and weekend (home improvement). Business is strong enough to allow me to pass a
“fuel surcharge” on to my customers, so my gas is taken care of.
Even then – I still do my best to conserve by driving slower, etc.
Back to the original topic:
I’m not sure how I feel about a 3rd party. As it is now, it takes about
51% of the population to elect a person to office. That means we are all ruled by about half of us. With the introduction of a 3rd (or god forbid 4th) party, all of us are at the whim of a 3rd of us.
It seems to me that term limits for all elected officials would be a better option, along with some serious reforms on government powers from the top down.
May 5th, 2006 at 5:32 am
amba,
ANWR is just the “Poster Child” for those of us who believe America has
enough oil to sustain itself. We believe we are being held hostage by the enviromentalists in this country. America should be drilling in ANWR, the Gulf, in other depostits in the lower 48.
May 5th, 2006 at 10:38 am
ford, it’s a beautiful vision. What a pity that geology doesn’t support it.
May 5th, 2006 at 10:57 am
from http://www.legion.org (American Legion Webzine)
Seems pretty substantial to me…
May 5th, 2006 at 11:08 am
ford,
the comment about your vehicle was actually just a joke – perhaps not very funny. and no, i don’t think that anyone who actually SAID they were going to raise gas prices would get elected. if i were that person, i would keep that to myself. (another joke – haha). but, just to clarify, i am absolutely not advocating an increased profit margin for oil companies. i think they should be persecuted as much as possible, while we simultaneously pay more for gas because our current gas prices, as high as they are, are still artificially low.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:11 am
ford
i do agree with you about the third party thing; a third of people picking out pres does sound crappy.
but, in the meantime, you have gone and posted about oil in the US. i just don’t want to go digging and blowing up OUR country for oil. that’s why we invade other countries, like Iraq. we just need to start using alternative energy sources, period, and leave the oil alone. the sooner we get on that, the better.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:43 am
I don’t quite understand your comment, Meredith, so I shall joke about it. :-)
Are you afraid we’re going to invade the US to seize its oil resources?
May 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Well, invading Iraq for oil sure worked out well. :)
May 5th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
My comment was meant to be sarcastic. I don’t know how to get emoticons on these things, just like I don’t know how to block quote, italicize, bold, or use the bathroom unsupervised.
I’m saying lets destroy other countries’ parks and wildlife preserves and things to get our oil, not our own (joke).
And yes, I think the Iraq thing is going very well too!
May 5th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
[...] Interesting article here: Friedman is appalled by both parties’ pandering “solutions” to the gas-price crisis, craven schemes for bribing voters out of the pockets of our kids and grandkids. He believes that both parties’ utter abdication of the responsibility to get very serious about the energy crisis that is upon us – and is also, of course, our national-security crisis – creates a huge opening for a third party, and that such a party will field a presidential candidate as early as 2008. [...]
May 8th, 2006 at 7:49 am
Is the Time Finally Right for a Third Party?
Here\’s an interesting piece from Slate.com
More Fun With Third Parties
A Rasmussen robo-poll recently showed that \”a 3rd party Presidential candidate with a pro-enforcement immigration agenda would theoretically end up in a virtual tie with…